SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

short period of time then the AO has reached a reasonable conclusion in treating the transactions as bogus and capital gain is as a result of accommodation entry and raging of price of the shares. He has submitted that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj held that when the report of the investigation

SMT. SHEELA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(5), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

short period of time then the AO has reached a reasonable conclusion in treating the transactions as bogus and capital gain is as a result of accommodation entry and raging of price of the shares. He has submitted that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj held that when the report of the investigation

ANKUR AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO-5(1), INDORE

In the result, all three appeals of two assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

short period of time then the AO has reached a reasonable conclusion in treating the transactions as bogus and capital gain is as a result of accommodation entry and raging of price of the shares. He has submitted that Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj held that when the report of the investigation

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

short-term capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

short-term capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

short-term capital gain from sale of units in ‘The View’ project and business income from sale of units in ‘Almas 12 Mohanlal Chugh & others Elements’ project in his original returns of income furnished u/s 139 of the Act. We further find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished all the necessary details, documents

SMT. SARLA JAIN,KHANDWA vs. ITO WARD 1 KHANDWA, KHANDWA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sarla Jain, Ito, C/O Nakoda Marketing, Ward-1, बनाम/ Bhavani Mata Road, Khandwa Khandwa Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abvpj1316J Assessee By Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

short of jurisdiction and hence null and void. Relying upon Arun Kumar Vs. UOI (2006) 155 Taxman 659 (SC), Ld. AR argued that by erroneously assuming jurisdiction, no authority can confer upon itself the jurisdiction which it does not possess. Ld. AR contended that the assumption of jurisdiction by AO u/s 143(2)/143(3) is clearly illegal and deserves

SHRI GAURAV TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

short “LDPL”) through broker namely Shri Vishal Vijay Shah of Mumbai on 23.03.2012 at a consideration of Rs. 15,800/- in the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2012-13. The purchase of shares was made by the appellant through account payee cheques and then transferred in the name of appellant with the respective company

SHRI VRINDAVAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

short “LDPL”) through broker namely Shri Vishal Vijay Shah of Mumbai on 23.03.2012 at a consideration of Rs. 15,800/- in the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2012-13. The purchase of shares was made by the appellant through account payee cheques and then transferred in the name of appellant with the respective company

SHRI GOPAL TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

short “LDPL”) through broker namely Shri Vishal Vijay Shah of Mumbai on 23.03.2012 at a consideration of Rs. 15,800/- in the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2012-13. The purchase of shares was made by the appellant through account payee cheques and then transferred in the name of appellant with the respective company

GOVARDHAN TAYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

short “LDPL”) through broker namely Shri Vishal Vijay Shah of Mumbai on 23.03.2012 at a consideration of Rs. 15,800/- in the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2012-13. The purchase of shares was made by the appellant through account payee cheques and then transferred in the name of appellant with the respective company

THE JCIT RANGE-3, INDORE vs. SHRI AMANDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jcit, Range-3 Shri Amandeep Singh Indore Bhatia बनाम/ 8/5, Bcc House, Manoramaganj, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Agopb 3205 E Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijayvargiya, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

short]. Ld. AR submitted that penalty was imposed on Shyam and not on Sunil. He submitted that the AO has also made a direct verification from Sunil u/s 133(6) for his own satisfaction, in response to which Sunil had confirmed the sale-transactions having been executed by him. Ld. AR strongly contended that the capital gain is earned

HARPREET KAUR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 5(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

Term Capital Gain\nNil\n4. In light of the discussions held as above total income of the assessee is\nassessed as under-\n4.\nIncome shown as per ITR filed\nLess: Capital gain as shown\nAdd: Unexplained Cash Deposit\nTotal assessed income u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961\nRs.111387/-\nRs.44018/-\nRs.861000/-\nRs.928369/-\n[Emphasis supplied]\nNow, we re-produce

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer of shares by the assessee is in the name of NSIL Infotech Ltd. and NSIL Power Ltd. There is no doubt that such transactions were related to sale of shares of Mid India Steel & Power Ltd. by the assessee to NSIL Infotech Ltd. and NSIL Power Ltd. which took place only in A.Y.2010-2011. The Ld. DR at the time

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

transfer of shares by the assessee is in the name of NSIL Infotech Ltd. and NSIL Power Ltd. There is no doubt that such transactions were related to sale of shares of Mid India Steel & Power Ltd. by the assessee to NSIL Infotech Ltd. and NSIL Power Ltd. which took place only in A.Y.2010-2011. The Ld. DR at the time

SMT. INDIRA BOHRA,,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

short term capital loss made by the appellant was not genuine, which was, in turn, confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. Smt. Indira Bohra vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 4. We have heard the rival submission made by the respective parties and also perused the relevant materials available on record including the orders passed

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2007-08 Computer Sciences Acit, Corporation India Private Company Circle 1(3), Limited, Chennai [Formerly Covansys (India) Private Limited], बनाम/ Unit 13, Block 2, Sdf Buildings, Vs. Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram, Chennai (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacc1351M Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Abhishek Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

gained a mis- understanding that some of the units have not generated sufficient profitability/PLI and prompted to make adjustment under transfer pricing for those units, which is not correct. Page 18 of 47 Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Chennai Assessment year 2007-08 (vi) It is submitted that the TPO/AO has matched ‘unit-level’ profitability of assessee with ‘entity

SHIVKRIPA DEVCON P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

term capital gain and added the same in respondent’s income under Section 68 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that the A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry in the case of the said